Thursday, September 23, 2010

---
On what was once expected, and still may be, a short ninth day of the McCourt divorce trial, Larry Silverstein will again be subject to direct examination by David Boies. It is unknown how much time Boies needs; he seemed to be building to a crescendo yesterday, but couldn't quite fit the finale into the time alotted. Many are expecting a dramatic finish to his examination of Silverstein, in which Boies might seek an admission that would implicate Frank in some sort of wrongdoing.

Remember, it is ultimately Frank that Boies would like to accuse of wrongdoing. Laying the foundation for a possible consolation lawsuit against Silverstein and his firm is well and good, but pinning Frank to something nefarious would be ideal. Whether that can be accomplished is an item to watch today.

Afterwards, Frank's attorney Victoria Cook will resume her own time with Silverstein. Yesterday, she did a good job walking Silverstein through the process that led to what Frank's side characterizes a "mistake" on three copies of Exhibit A. Notably, according to Silverstein's testimony, Frank and Jamie were carefully walked through the MPA and the Massachusetts Exhibit A on the morning of the signing. As the next set of documents appeared identical, no party looked through those prior to signing, so none noticed the conflicting version of Exhibit A.

Once Silverstein is done, we will have most of the key issues on the table. Judge Gordon has already informed the parties that his mind is mostly made up on the issue of whether Jamie McCourt has any existing ownership interest in the Dodgers. The answer is no, and Frank's remaining witnesses supporting that conclusion have been provisionally excused.

That means the stage is pretty well set for settlement talks to resume in earnest this weekend. Indications from both sides are that these folks are serious: there is strong interest in taking the decision away from the court. The more difficult question to answer is how much money Jamie will get, and how Frank would be able to afford it and still run the team. If this works out, look for some combination of money now, money at regular intervals, and some mechanism for a portion of future revenue streams or proceeds from sale.

Edit: I am leaving the body of the post intact, as it has led to some confusion and I don't think that's best solved by switching out the evidence while no one is looking. The post above this one, and a comment to it, should hopefully resolve any issues.
---
Sent via BlackBerry

6 comments:

> Judge Gordon has already informed the parties that his mind is mostly made up on the issue of whether Jamie McCourt has any existing ownership interest in the Dodgers. The answer is no, and Frank's remaining witnesses supporting that conclusion have been provisionally excused.

Wait... Doesn't that mean that the case is essentially over as far as Dodgers fans are concerned? That is to say, the MPA is going to be enforced? That's a bit of an important news.

Wouldn't Boies trying to get Frank or Silverstein to admit something nefarious be "one question too many"? They do it in the movies a lot, but in real life, nobody cops to stuff like that. Seems like Boies might be better setting the table and then leaving the final question to be answered in everyone's minds.

So did the Judge just basically say Frank has won? From all I have read it seemed Jaime was leading, specially when Silverstein admitted he didn't inform Jaime of the change. The saddest day in Dodger history will be when/if Frank wins or they settle and he keeps the Dodgers. This will truly be the end of a once respectable, proud franchise.